BRRABill's Field Report With Linux
-
@scottalanmiller said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@art_of_shred said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@scottalanmiller said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@JaredBusch said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@Dashrender said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@art_of_shred said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@Dashrender said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@scottalanmiller said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@Dashrender said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@scottalanmiller said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@Dashrender said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@dafyre said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@Dashrender said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@dafyre said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@dafyre said
I have never had any issues not putting them in... But make sure you understand what they are at a bare minimum... Bonus points if you know how to calculate them.
Bah, that's why we have the interwebs
That's also why it's bonus points if you know how to calculate it.
I recall when I learned how to calculate it - for a while I just assumed anyone higher than me on the IT food chain must know this stuff - boy was I wrong.
I know, right? The only reason I remember is because my CCNA prof made sure we knew how to do subnet calculations on paper from day one.
I learned it when I was self learning Windows NT stuff. My company at the time was all Windows 3.1 and a bit Windows 95 with Netware on the servers. For some reason I really like NT 4.0 and bought some books and started learning.
Out of all the Microsoft Server versions I've used over the years, 2000 was my favorite with NT4.0 only falling out of the favorite slot because of the tiny boot partition, even at that time 2GB was kinda small.
I still prefer NT4 by far. 2000 was actually my least favourite.
Well, I used Server 2000 for a desktop back in the pre XP days, just to have a stable platform to game on
Linux/UNIX world was always so much more stable.Yes, I did the same thing. I moved to Windows 2000 as fast as possible. Win9x was so unstable...
That wasn't the transition, though. The Windows 9x world was consumer, Windows NT was business. Windows 2000 was the continuation of the already most of a decade old NT family. So had you moved to the NT world "as soon as you could" you would have done so before Windows 95 even released. Windows ME was the continuation of the 9x family, Windows 2000 was NT 5. So you jumped mid-stream.
Yes I know all that - I don't know why my office never really used NT3.51... we went from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows 2000 at that office.
I personally tossed NT 4.0 in there.
I have always had the sense that most businesses did just that. 3.11 > 95 > 2000.
agreed - at least on the desktop side.
Every business I dealt with back then went that route.
I saw a lot of 95, but a lot of good businesses on NT 4 workstation, too. Definitely saw some leap from the DOS family to 2000 directly but saw NT 4 on the desktop more than anything else in the late 1990s.
I think I've seen 1 or 2 NT4 workstations... ever.
I think you've seen more than that just visiting my apartment in the 1990s. We easily had half a dozen there alone.
NTG was 100% NT4 from 1999 - 2003 except for a small number of 2000 machines that were put on client sites after 2000.
That sounds like my place.
-
How long does
sudo -slast for?
-
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
How long does
sudo -slast for?
Forever, it runs whatever is the default shell. So if you're using bash it's exactly like
sudo bash -
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
How long does
sudo -slast for?
Forever, it runs whatever is the default shell. So if you're using bash it's exactly like
sudo bashBut I mean, if you log off, does it retain? AKA, do you have to do something to turn it off?
-
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
How long does
sudo -slast for?
Forever, it runs whatever is the default shell. So if you're using bash it's exactly like
sudo bashBut I mean, if you log off, does it retain? AKA, do you have to do something to turn it off?
once you type exit it's gone and you're back to your user creds.
-
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
How long does
sudo -slast for?
Forever, it runs whatever is the default shell. So if you're using bash it's exactly like
sudo bashBut I mean, if you log off, does it retain? AKA, do you have to do something to turn it off?
You have to exit from that shell. Normally, that's how we'd logoff of an ssh session. On a desktop, logging out should close all user land apps, which include shell sessions.
To keep a shell session running you'd want to use screen and detach the session. Other programs can do the same thing, but I'm forgetting what the newer ones are.
-
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@travisdh1 said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
@BRRABill said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
How long does
sudo -slast for?
Forever, it runs whatever is the default shell. So if you're using bash it's exactly like
sudo bashBut I mean, if you log off, does it retain? AKA, do you have to do something to turn it off?
You have to exit from that shell. Normally, that's how we'd logoff of an ssh session. On a desktop, logging out should close all user land apps, which include shell sessions.
To keep a shell session running you'd want to use screen and detach the session. Other programs can do the same thing, but I'm forgetting what the newer ones are.
Got it, OK.
-
Just posting this
I recently rebuilt and redesigned the local lan here. Had to because of gear failure.
My old issue in XS of not being able to export vms quickly is gone. It had remained even after Citrix said they fixed the issue, so i now think it was something old sysadmin had done to cripple communications between networks(intentional or not i dunno).
Now when i export vms i am exporting at around 500Mbps through Xencenter, using 7.1 and 6.5. Unheard of in the past on this network. -
@momurda said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
Just posting this
I recently rebuilt and redesigned the local lan here. Had to because of gear failure.
My old issue in XS of not being able to export vms quickly is gone. It had remained even after Citrix said they fixed the issue, so i now think it was something old sysadmin had done to cripple communications between networks(intentional or not i dunno).
Now when i export vms i am exporting at around 500Mbps through Xencenter, using 7.1 and 6.5. Unheard of in the past on this network.It was definitely hit or miss, even among the XS forum people.
-
@momurda said in BRRABill's Field Report With Linux:
Just posting this
I recently rebuilt and redesigned the local lan here. Had to because of gear failure.
My old issue in XS of not being able to export vms quickly is gone. It had remained even after Citrix said they fixed the issue, so i now think it was something old sysadmin had done to cripple communications between networks(intentional or not i dunno).
Now when i export vms i am exporting at around 500Mbps through Xencenter, using 7.1 and 6.5. Unheard of in the past on this network.What was the old networking gear?
-
@dashrender Cisco small business line. SGE something or other. replace with ubnt ES-48L
-
This thread is back? Whoa.
-
It's not thattttttttttttttttttttttttttt old.
